Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario

[nrenka]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb <elfundeb at g...> wrote:

> Debbie:
> That may be what Flamel and DD think, but for many of the WW, death 
> is a *huge* deal.

There's also a distinction to be made between dying and killing.  
Death may not be something evil to be feared, but neither is it 
something to be embraced before one's time--and most of all, it is 
not the place of any human to send another into death.

If I were less lazy, I'd dig up the interview quotes wherein JKR 
discusses how what makes Voldemort evil is how he kills, and how evil 
it is to take a human life.  But having nearly been flooded at 4:30 
this morning, I'm not feeling in the research sort of mood.

> Debbie:
> But I have another question. Assuming the AK was real, did that 
> action split Snape's soul, if he killed DD to further DD's agenda, 
> and with his full understanding and permission? Slughorn tells us 
> that soul-splitting only occurs in the commission of "the supreme 
> act of evil. By committing murder." Murder. Not killing. Not AK, 
> either. He then states that "[k]illing rips the soul apart," but 
> the statement is made in the context of the previous sentence. 

Heh, I don't read the passage that way--I read it as a return to a 
categorical statement.  Murder is a supreme act of evil, but all 
killing tears at the soul.

I don't think you can use AK without explicit intent to kill, and I 
think that is an action of categorical evil.  However, I think that 
there are times that evil can be mitigated--but it doesn't negate the 
horror of the act.  Particularly one that is carried out through the 
perfect transformation of intention into magic.

<snip>

> There's an embedded assumption in the WW's labeling of AK 
> as "unforgivable" that killing another human being is inherently 
> evil, but it's not borne out by reality. The label is meaningful in 
> applying the WW legal system, but WW law is not necessarily based 
> on the magical principles underlying the AK spell. Even under WW 
> law, there must be exceptions; otherwise, how could Crouch Sr. Have 
> authorized the use of Unforgivables on suspects? Surely he didn't 
> order the Aurors to split their souls. 

You wouldn't put that past Crouch Sr.?  I would.  His actions are 
definitely portrayed as excessive, bringing evil into the ranks of 
those who are supposed to be fighting it.  He stepped across a line 
that should have been held.

I can easily envision a grand law of Potterverse ethics being that 
killing is categorically wrong.  Then the interest comes in dealing 
with it, the whole issue of lesser of two evils, bad necessities, 
mending torn souls, etc.  To take away the essence of AK as willing 
death upon another being as a fundamental act...eh, I don't see it.

-Nora could cheerfully be very wrong and admits it freely